So came across a question while driving. If you get the PS 0 Critical and have veteran instincts is your Pilot Skill 2 or 0.

The reason I ask is because effects like Ion Damage are negated by crew members and droids.

The other reasoning is this. The card states your Pilot skill is 0. The VI Card says increase your pilot skill by 2. Meaning your final pilot skill would be 0+2=2.

VI adds to your initial PS, effectively giving you a higher PS going into the battle. The crit then sets your PS to 0.

When two (or more) "things" modify the same thing the negative modification trumps the positive modification.

Here's from the FAQ.

Q: How does Veteran Instincts work with other abilities that set a ship’s pilot skill value to a new number?

A: Veteran Instincts increases a ship’s printed pilot skill value; it does not increase further alterations to that ship’s pilot skill value. For example, while Black Squadron Pilot is equipped with Veteran Instincts, his pilot skill value is “6.” If Darth Vader (pilot skill value “9”) uses Swarm Tactics on that Black Squadron Pilot, that Black Squadron Pilot now has a pilot skill value of “9,” not “11.”

So since the Damaged Cockpit says to treat your PS as 0, it's 0.

Final is zero.

Your pilot skill would still be "0" as VI takes effect at time of equipping. So say you take VI with Luke, your pilot skill is now 10 but then goes to zero with the Crit. Reference/Source FAQ, Page 6, Lower left column:

When two (or more) "things" modify the same thing the negative modification trumps the positive modification.

That's not actually true.

The rules say "If one card ability forbids an effect, while another ability allows it, the effect is forbidden." There is also this from the FAQ "An effect that increases the difficulty of a maneuver takes priority over an effect that decreases the difficulty."

But there is nothing in the rules that say the negative mod trumps the positive one.

Even if there were, it wouldn't apply in this case because this isn't a positive vs negative modifier, it's a positive modifier +2 vs an absolute value 0.

There is actually conflicting guidance over how to resolve conflicting effects (see what I did there? ). The FAQ addresses maneuver difficulty, and says the worst one wins. A recent email response from FFG concerning Swarm Tactics and PS says that it's the last effect wins.

What does that mean for any other situation? Flip a coin.

What does that mean for any other situation? Flip a coin.

I think that's what FFG does sometimes when writing their FAQ.

I love X-Wing, wouldn't spend nearly the amount of time on these forms as I do if I didn't... I also think FFG is one of the good companies out there that seems really care about gamers, and don't see just our wallets...

But some of the rulings they've made, and the fact that they have yet to errata Cluster Missiles...

Actually, I don't see this case as a flip coin.

It seems that in the case of opposite effects ( 'Do it' vs 'Don't do it' ) the rules concedes prevalence to the more restrictive.

However, in the case of Swarm Tactics, there is no conflict of 'opposite effects'... Instead, they are succesive effects that modify a previous value. And in that case, it seems consistent with the rules that the 'last modification of that value prevails'.

If I have a pilot with PS 7, and put VI on him, PS changes to 9. If later that pilot is injured, the PS changes to 0. And if later a teammate uses Swarm Tactics on him, it changes to mate's PS. There are no 'opposite effects', only succesive changes of a numerical value.

The confusion comes because people, in their minds, identify having PS 0 as a 'bad/worst effect'. And then, they apply that rule of 'worst must prevail' which in fact, is a rule born of thin air.... Nowhere in the rules is stated that 'the worst effect must prevail'. If anything, that 'rule' was created by community 'consensus', but the real fact is that it's not supported by the rules at all.

The actual rules only gave us resolution to 2 conflicts: "Allow vs Forbid" and "Red maneuver vs Green manuever", which not by coincidence, they happen to be opposite effects.

But from that startpoint, people extended those answers beyond their original context, interpreted it their own way, and automatically assumed that for every other conflict in the game, regardless of their nature, the 'worst' effect should always prevail.... Which is being demonstrated now by FFG that it's not the case.

Cluster Missiles drinking game - every time an expansion is announced and a card is found which has a questionable interaction with CM which someone is going to try and exploit, take two shots.

See what I did there?

The actual rules only gave us resolution to 2 conflicts: "Allow vs Forbid" and "Red maneuver vs Green manuever", which not by coincidence, they happen to be opposite effects.

So what makes Red/Green opposite and automatically worse in a way that PS isn't? I suppose you can argue that PS 0 can be beneficial - but so can red maneuvers now, thanks to Farlander. For someone going out of their way to point out things that don't exist, you seem to have missed that the entire concept of "opposite" just doesn't exist.

Everything in the game structure points to lower PS being "worse" - ships pay for higher PS, you pay for upgrades to increase PS, and you have a critical effect (which should be assumed to be bad) that reduces it below any printed value.

It really shouldn't matter whether the value you're changing is numeric or color-based. When you have multiple effects that are changing them, they should be resolved consistently. And yes, there are multiple effects. Swarm Tactics says "Until the end of the phase". That's duration-based. The PS reduction crit is an ongoing effect that is active at all times (once it engages, before someone tries to nitpick that). Both abilities are active at the same time, both are trying to change the same thing. Just like a Damaged Engine and an R2.

Nobody who has a problem with this is hanging anything on the existence of a "worse beats better" rule. I've pointed out that it doesn't exist myself, on more occasions than I can count. What we do have are two rulings which handle conflicting effects differently, with nothing to distinguish why one works this way and the other works that way.

I thought this had died

macar: Necro thread of DOOOOOM!!!

<Cross post>

Think of it in application order. R2 is applied to ship first as it is part of the build, that makes all 1 and 2 green. You take a crit and turns become red. This overrides the previous effect of R2.

This thought process works for VI + Blinded Pilot and quite a few other places as far as I can tell. Also then matches with the swarm tactics rulings!

Cluster Missiles drinking game - every time an expansion is announced and a card is found which has a questionable interaction with CM which someone is going to try and exploit, take two shots.

You want to take two shots for every future expansion?

Think of it in application order. R2 is applied to ship first as it is part of the build, that makes all 1 and 2 green. You take a crit and turns become red. This overrides the previous effect of R2.

This would actually be nice if it worked this way (well, except for having to remember when all effects came into play so you could order them, that could be annoying), but it's not what the FAQ says. The FAQ is actually rather directly unambiguous on what wins, and why:

Buhallin - If you read what I actually wrote you would see that I didn't say my idea was what is actually put in either the rules or the FAQ. But it does seem to fit with the rulings they have given on a number of situations. Since I can't think of any situations it doesn't hold at the moment I find it a good way to help me understand how things seem to work.

Buhallin - If you read what I actually wrote you would see that I didn't say my idea was what is actually put in either the rules or the FAQ. But it does seem to fit with the rulings they have given on a number of situations. Since I can't think of any situations it doesn't hold at the moment I find it a good way to help me understand how things seem to work.

Maybe it's just me, but when I'm having rules discussions my general default is to assume that what I'm saying is based on the rules. If you're going to go completely outside of the rules, you should probably disclaimer that.

Adrenaline Rush and Damaged Engine are at least one situation where it wouldn't work though. Damaged Engine makes turns red. Later, you try to use Adrenaline Rush on a turn. It's a base white maneuver, Damaged Engine makes it red, Adrenaline Rush makes it white, and the "worst difficulty wins" rule comes into play.

The only way you can make a blanket "Most recent wins" work is to disregard the actual response in the FAQ, which is why I pointed it out.

I think the 'most recent' issue is easily looked at by Damaged Cockpit and Roark's ability of making someone PS12 for shooting.

Which take's precedent? This is now further muddied with there being beneficial abilities treating PS as 0 (Advanced Scopes). What intrinsically treats higher PS as being 'better' in the positive-negative spectrum? (like we can see with maneuver colors) There a 'last imprinted' value seems to be an interpretation when dealing with multiple absolute values for PS.

As for VI & AdvScopes: I think this is easily resolved without much thought. At the beginning of the game (before even placing ships) your PS is +2 due to VI. Treat the text on the card as +2. Adv Scopes doesn't even trigger until the activation phase, at which points it sets your PS to 0. VI doesn't 'reapply' itself at all.

Buhallin: Really - I am pretty sure Adrenalin Rush overrides Damaged Engine. The only ruling we have on that so far is the Damaged Engine overrules R2. But Adrenalin Rush allows you to treat a revealed red manoeuvre as white. So no issue there.

As to Roark's ability and Damaged Cockpit, then for movement you are PS0 and for shooting you are PS12. Simple really.

Now I do agree that there is no comment on what I am saying in the rules. In fact the rules specifically say that the player determines the order in which effects resolve if they occur at the same time. But it seems that my idea explains the rulings that we have seen from FFG. So what is the issue with that? Now should we get a ruling from FFG that contradicts what I'm saying I'll agree that it is wrong. Till then no dice my friend!

We already have a ruling which contradicts what you're saying:

Q: If two or more game effects conflict in changing the difficulty of a maneuver, which effect takes priority?
A: An effect that increases the difficulty of a maneuver takes priority over an effect that decreases the difficulty.

This is not a specific ruling concerning Damaged Engine and R2. It is a nice, broad ruling concerning any two effects which are affecting the same maneuver difficulty. So no, Adrenaline Rush does NOT override Damage Engine - If Adrenaline Rush is trying to change the difficulty, and Damaged Engine is trying to change the difficulty, then Adrenaline rush does NOT win. The more difficult maneuver wins, and this directly contradicts your claim that the most recent effect wins.

Honestly, I've tried to point that out to you three times, in two different threads, but you continue to pretend it doesn't exist. And now you throw up something about simultaneous effects, which has less than nothing to do with this question. Your "idea" is a fiction which is directly, blatantly, and absolutely contradicted by the FAQ.